| | |  | | 
04-13-2008, 08:55 PM
|
#1 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Chicago Gender: Male
Threads: 17
Posts: 223
| What were your safeties/low matches?
Just wondering.
Post the schools you considered safeties and/or low matches, and why you applied to them. It would be interesting to see if there's a correlation between choosing Columbia as a first choice school and choosing other schools as safeties. | 
| | |
04-13-2008, 09:17 PM
|
#2 | | Member
Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: NYU Stern '12 Gender: Male
Threads: 27
Posts: 739
| my low match was NYU Stern, and maybe CMU Tepper....
im an international, so i didn't really have any safeties... | |
| | |
04-14-2008, 12:15 AM
|
#3 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: NYC Gender: Male
Threads: 15
Posts: 1,747
| probably one of the ******bag-iest questions i've seen on CC | |
| | |
04-14-2008, 12:28 AM
|
#4 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Chicago Gender: Male
Threads: 17
Posts: 223
| Erm, sorry? I honestly didn't intend it in such a manner. I thought that maybe kids applying to Columbia as a reach would apply to more urban safety schools than kids whose first choice was a place like Dartmouth or Princeton.
I also figured that if a lot of Columbia applicants liked certain schools that were a bit easier to get in to, I should give those schools consideration as well.
What did you find so inflammatory about my question? | |
| | |
04-14-2008, 12:46 AM
|
#5 | | Member
Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: NYU Stern '12 Gender: Male
Threads: 27
Posts: 739
| lol @ shraf | |
| | |
04-14-2008, 01:05 AM
|
#6 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Threads: 23
Posts: 3,321
| I think it's a perfectly fine question. Better than 90% of the crap on here.
My safeties were Berkeley and UCLA. | |
| | |
04-14-2008, 01:30 PM
|
#7 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Threads: 8
Posts: 185
| Safeties: USC, Cornell, Rice, WashU
match (didn't have low matches, unless you count Cornell): UChicago | |
| | |
04-14-2008, 04:09 PM
|
#8 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Threads: 7
Posts: 271
| match: chicago, cornell, amherst
safety: georgetown, stern/nyu cas, cmu
in between: hopkins, northwestern
just because people go to columbia does not mean that it was (is?) their first choice.
Last edited by lvilleslacker : 04-14-2008 at 04:20 PM.
| |
| | |
04-14-2008, 09:13 PM
|
#9 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Threads: 4
Posts: 195
| Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Cornell, Rice, WashU being called safties?
hmmmm, maybe its time to reevaluate your definition of a safety. | |
| | |
04-14-2008, 09:54 PM
|
#10 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Threads: 2
Posts: 69
| Quote:
Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Cornell, Rice, WashU being called safties?
hmmmm, maybe its time to reevaluate your definition of a safety.
| i whole-heartedly agree. | |
| | |
04-14-2008, 10:04 PM
|
#11 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Chicago Gender: Male
Threads: 17
Posts: 223
| Yeah, I was going to say the same. I'm thinking my safeties will be University of Texas-Austin, Trinity College (CT), and University of Illinois. If I applied to University of Michigan as a low-ish match, I probably wouldn't apply UIllinois. | |
| | |
04-14-2008, 10:04 PM
|
#12 | | Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Threads: 2
Posts: 859
| ^um no, all those schools are easier to get into than columbia (except maybe cornell seas vs columbia seas), and if someone is a top notch applicant, those schools could easily be considered safeties. When I was applying I had comparable schools as safties. | |
| | |
04-14-2008, 10:10 PM
|
#13 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Chicago Gender: Male
Threads: 17
Posts: 223
| confidentialcoll, of course those are all easier to get into than columbia, but isn't the point of a safety either a public school that seems to have a defined, statistically-based, admissions pattern or a private school where the given applicant has scores significantly above the school's average and the school isn't known as being specifically holistic and/or having Tufts syndrome?
Berkely, UCLA, NYU, et al could be safeties for top applicants, but picking Amherst as a low match or Cornell and Georgetown as safeties comes across as a bit arrogant. | |
| | |
04-14-2008, 10:10 PM
|
#14 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Threads: 23
Posts: 3,321
| Quote:
Quote:
Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Cornell, Rice, WashU being called safties?
hmmmm, maybe its time to reevaluate your definition of a safety.
i whole-heartedly agree.
| At least for me, Berkeley and UCLA were safeties because they're very numbers-based admissions processes. If your scores and grades meet the formula, you're pretty much in. Soft factors don't matter much if at all (do you even need recs?), and you rarely hear of surprise rejections from people with the right numbers. This is different than the Ivies where even a 4.0/1600 could get you rejected from all them. | |
| | |
04-15-2008, 03:26 PM
|
#15 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Threads: 7
Posts: 271
| my prep school had strong enough placement that georgetown (among others mentioned) was a safety for a reasonable portion of the class.
the very top students had brown/penn as safeties and columbia/duke as matches, though my credentials were nowhere near their level.
Last edited by lvilleslacker : 04-15-2008 at 03:32 PM.
| |
| | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:06 AM. |
College Confidential is dedicated to providing the best free college admissions information available on the Web, through our many articles and this discussion forum.
